Phonology in the Speech Signal - Unifying cue and Prosodic Licensing

• Authors: Geoffrey Schwartz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper is offered in commemoration of Prof. Edmund Gussmann, who passed away sadly and unexpectedly just a few short weeks before the 41st Poznań Linguistic Meeting, where the paper was presented. The PLM session, Competing Explanations in Phonology, was the type of gathering at which Prof. Gussmann would thrive, advancing his strong theoretical position that phonetics is irrelevant for phonological theory (Gussmann 2004). Prof. Gussmann argued for this view in an animated and sometimes provocative manner, but he always did so with charm and good nature. My own views on the role of speech in phonology differ sharply from Prof. Gussmann's. I am nevertheless quite grateful for his perspective, which has indeed changed the way I think of speech. Under the influence of Government Phonology, I have adopted a phonological view of the acoustic signal, which seeks to challenge phoneticians with new hypotheses about the way speech interacts with grammar. This paper explicates this perspective, and applies it to a recent case, cue vs. prosodic licensing, in which "phonetic" and "phonological" explanations seemed to be at an impasse. Thanks in part to Prof. Gussmann's strong theoretical position, I have developed a new theory of constituency that offers a vehicle with which we may reconcile competing views on the underpinnings of phonological licensing.

Keywords

EN

Phonetics; phonology; explanation; prosodic licensing; licensing by cue

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2010
• Volume: 46
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 499-518

Dates

published

2010-12-01

online

2011-03-30

Contributors

author

Geoffrey Schwartz

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

References

• Blevins, J. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[WoS]
• Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dave, R. 1977. "Retroflex and dental consonants in Gujarati: A palatographic and acoustic study". Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen (ARIPUC) 11. 27-155.
• Davidson, L. 2007. "The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation". Phonology 24. 261-286.
• Dinnsen, D. and J. Charles-Luce. 1984. "Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences". Journal of Phonetics 12. 49-60.
• Fleischhacker, H. 2001. "Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries". UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7 (Papers in Phonology 5.) 71-116.
• Flemming, E. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.
• Golston, C. and H. van der Hulst. 1999. "Stricture is structure". In: Hermans, B. and M. van Oostendorp (eds.), The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 153-173.
• Goldinger, S., D. Pisoni and P. Luce. 1996. "Speech perception and spoken word recognition: Research and theory". In: Lass, N. (ed.), Principles of experimental phonetics. St. Louis: Moseby-Year. 277-327.
• Greenberg, S. 1996. "Auditory processing of speech". In: Lass, N. (ed.), Principles of experimental phonetics. St. Louis: Moseby-Year. 362-408.
• Gussmann, E. 2004. "The irrelevance of phonetics". Corpus 3. 125-152. http://corpus.revues.org/index203.html
• Hall, N. 2006. "Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion". Phonology 23. 387-429.[Crossref]
• Hamann, S. 2003. "Norwegian retroflexion: Licensing by cue or prosody?" Nordlyd 31(1). 63-77.
• Harris, J. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Harris, J. 2006. "The phonology of being understood - further arguments against sonority". Lingua 116. 1483-1494.[Crossref]
• Harris, J. 2009. "Why final obstruent devoicing is weakening". In: Nasukawa, N. and P. Backley (eds.), Strength relations in phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 9-46.
• Hayes, B. and D. Steriade. 2004. "The phonetic basis of phonological markedness". In: Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-33.
• Ito, J. 1988. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. New York: Garland.
• Krakow, R. A. 1999. "Physiological organization of syllables: A review". Journal of Phonetics 27. 23-54.[Crossref]
• Labov, W. 1997. Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Ladefoged, P. and I. Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Lombardi, L. 1995. "Laryngeal neutralization and syllable well-formedness". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 39-74.
• Maddieson, I. 1997. "Phonetic universals". In: Hardcastle, W. and J. Laver (eds), The handbook of phonetic sciences. Cambridge: Blackwell. 619-640.[WoS]
• Manaster-Ramer, A. 1996. "A letter from an incompletely neutral phonologist". Journal of Phonetics 24. 477-489.[Crossref]
• Ohala, J. 1981. "The listener as a source of sound change". In: Masek, C. S., R. A. Hendrik and M. F. Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178-203.
• Ohala, J. 1992. "Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints". Papers from the parasession on the syllable. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 319-338.
• Oostendorp, M. van. 2006. "Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology" [WoS]
• Pöchtrager, M. 2006. The structure of length. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Vienna.)
• Port, R. 1996. "The discreteness of phonetic elements and formal linguistics: A response to A. Manaster-Ramer". Journal of Phonetics 24. 491-511.[Crossref]
• Port, R. and J. Dalby 1982. "Consonant/vowel ratio as a cue for voicing in English". Perception and Psychophysics 32. 141-152.[Crossref]
• Rubach, J. 1990. "Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German". Linguistic Inquiry 21. 79-94.
• Scheer, T. and P. Szigetvári. 2005. "Unified representations for the syllable and stress". Phonology 22. 37-75.[Crossref]
• Schwartz, G. 2009. Phonology for the listener and language learner. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
• Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. and N. Veilleux. 2007. "Robustness of acoustic landmarks in spontaneously-spoken American English". Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken.
• Shinn, P. and S. E. Blumstein. 1984. "On the role of the amplitude envelope for the perception of [b] and [w]". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75. 1243-1252.
• Silverman, D. 2009. "Release and reduction: Two origins of schwa". Paper presented at the 17th Manchester Phonology Meeting.
• Slowiaczek, L. and D. Dinnsen. 1985. "On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing". Journal of Phonetics 13. 325-341.
• Steriade, D. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. (Ms., Uuniversity of California, Los Angeles.)
• Steriade, D. 2001. "Directional asymmetires in place assimilation - A perceptual account". In: Hume, E. and K. Johnson (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology. New York: Academic Press. 219-250.
• Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton.
• Walker, D. 2001. French sound structure. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
• Wells, J. 1990. "Syllabification and allophony". In: Ramsaran, S. (ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English. London: Routledge. 76-86.
• Wright, R. 2004. "Perceptual cue robustness and phonotactic constraints". In: Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34-57.
• Wright, R., S. Frisch, and D. Pisoni. 1997. Speech perception. Research on spoken language processing. (Progress Report No. 21.) Indiana University.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-010-0025-3